Search

Fewer than 10 % of children with diffuse midline glioma (DMG) survive 2 years from diagnosis. Radiation therapy remains the cornerstone of treatment and there are no medicinal products with regulatory approval. Although the biology of DMG is better characterized, this has not yet translated into effective treatments. H3K27-alterations initiate the disease but additional drivers are required for malignant growth. Hence, there is an urgent unmet need to develop new multi-modality therapeutic strategies, including alternative methods of drug delivery. ONC201 (DRD2 antagonist and mitochondrial ClpP agonist) is the most widely evaluated investigational drug. Encouraging early data is emerging for CAR T-cells and oncolytic viruses. GD2, B7-H3 and PI3K signalling are ubiquitous targets across all subtypes and therapeutics directed to these targets would potentially benefit the largest number of children. PI3K, ACVR1, MAPK and PDGFRA pathways should be targeted in rational biological combinations. Drug discovery is a very high priority. New specific and potent epigenetic modifiers (PROTACS e.g. SMARCA4 degraders), with blood-brain penetrance are needed. Cancer neuroscience therapeutics are in early development. Overall survival is the preferred regulatory endpoint. However, the evaluation of this can be influenced by the use of re-irradiation at the time of progression. An efficient clinical trial design fit for regulatory purposes for the evaluation of new therapeutics would aid industry and facilitate more efficient therapy development. Challenges in conducting clinical trials such as the need for comparator data and defining endpoints, could be addressed through an international, first-in-child, randomised, complex innovative design trial. To achieve progress: i) drug discovery; ii) new multi-modality, efficient, collaborative, pre-clinical approaches, possibly including artificial intelligence and, iii) efficient clinical trial designs fit for regulatory purposes are required., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MR is an employee of Novartis and holds Novartis stock. JAE is an employee of Chimerix. EB is an employee of SonALAsence. JF is an employee of Kazia Therapeutics. MJ is an employee of Brainchild Bio and holds Brainchild Bio stock. MWK is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals. HK is an employee of Loxo Oncology. AGM is an employee of Laminar Pharma. AR is an employee of AstraZeneca. DZ is an employee of Biodexa Pharmaceuticals (Midatech). ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In poor-prognosis children's cancers, new therapies may carry fresh hope for patients and parents. However, there is an absolute requirement for any new therapy to be properly evaluated to fulfill scientific, regulatory, and reimbursement requirements. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard, but no consensus exists on how and when they should be deployed to best meet the needs of all stakeholders., Objective: To conduct a multistakeholder meeting to foster a greater shared understanding of perspectives regarding RCTs of new therapies for children with poor-prognosis cancers and develop consensus recommendations on when and how they should be used., Evidence Review: During October 2022 and April 2023, 2 structured workshops were convened, bringing together individuals representing the perspectives of patient advocates and academic clinician-researchers, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies. A premeeting briefing document was prepared and circulated to all attendees. During the workshops, selected attendees presented on behalf of each stakeholder group, focused topic discussions were conducted, and each meeting concluded by agreeing on a consensus set of recommendations. Meeting organizers drafted meeting summary reports that were circulated to all attendees, who commented on and revised them as a group to produce final recommendations from the workshops., Findings: Though the workshops did not reconcile all stakeholder differences, sufficient areas of agreement enabled a set of conclusions to be drawn, resulting in 8 consensus recommendations: (1) drug development strategies for new therapies, including the role of RCTs, should be established at the time of first-in-child studies; (2) engagement with regulators and health technology assessment bodies about RCT design is crucial; (3) involvement of patient advocates is necessary to ensure that an RCT is patient focused; (4) timing of an RCT is critical to preserve clinical equipoise; (5) use of crossover in an RCT can be of benefit, but with important caveats; (6) end point maturity and overall survival in an RCT may be important for regulatory and health technology assessment approvals; (7) in the absence of an RCT, contemporaneous control cohorts are preferred over historical control cohorts; and (8) quality of life should be captured in all prospective RCTs., Conclusions and Relevance: The agreed-upon workshop conclusions provide a basis for key considerations while undertaking future drug development activities for children with poor-prognosis cancers, ensuring that the needs and perspectives of all stakeholders are factored in from the outset.

Introduction: Enrolling children with cancer in early phase trials is crucial to access innovative treatments, contributing to advancing pediatric oncology research and providing tailored therapeutic options. Our objective is to analyze the impact of these trials on patient outcomes and safety, and to examine the evolution and feasibility of trials in pediatric cancer over the past decade., Methods: All patients recruited in pediatric anticancer phase I/II clinical trials from January 2014 to December 2022 were included. Clinical records and trial protocols were analyzed., Results: A total of 215 patients (median age 11.2 years, range 1-29.5) were included in 52 trials (258 inclusions). Patients with extracranial solid tumors (67%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (24%), and leukemia (9%) were included. The most common investigational drugs were small molecules (28.3%) and antibodies (20.5%). Serious adverse events were experienced by 41% of patients, 4.4% discontinued treatment because of toxicity and two had toxic deaths. Median event-free survival was 3.7 months (95%CI: 2.8-4.5), longer in phase II trials than in phase I (2 vs. 6.3 months; p  ≤ 0.001). Median overall survival was 12 months (95%CI: 9-15), higher in target-specific vs. non-target-specific trials (14 vs. 6 months; p  ≤ 0.001)., Discussion: A significant and increasing number of patients have been included in early clinical trials, suggesting that both oncologists and families consider it valuable to be referred to specialized Units to access new therapies. Moreover, our data suggests that participation in early clinical trials, although not without potential toxicities, might have a positive impact on individual outcomes., Competing Interests: AR-S-S had a consulting role for EusaPharma, Sanofi and SERB. She received honoraria from EusaPharma and Roche. FB has been a member of a data monitoring committee (DMC) in a clinical trial sponsored by Sanofi, had a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, Amgen, Roche Genentech, EusaPharma and Eisai and received honoraria from Servier (through his current affiliation). LM is member of a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) for clinical trials sponsored by Novartis, Actuate Therapeutics, Shionogi, Incyte, the University of Southampton and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; had a consulting role for Novartis, Bayer, BMS, Merck, Gilead and Shionogi, has received travel expenses from Recordati Rare Diseases and is member of the Executive Committee of SIOPEN (European neuroblastoma research cooperative group), organization which receives royalties for the sales of dinutuximab beta. His institution receives funding from sponsors for DMC participation, advisory role or conducting industry-sponsored clinical trials. LS received honoraria as consultant from Sobi, Agios, Novartis, Amgen and Rocket Pharmaceuticals Inc. He has also licensed medicinal products from Rocket Pharmaceuticals Inc. JV-A received honoraria from EusaPharma, Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Servier. M Ramirez has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Amplicell and stock options from Orgenesis. AL received honoraria from Servier, Alexion, and Lilly. BH received honoraria from Servier, Novartis and Pfizer. MA received honoraria from Servier and Takeda. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Pujol Manresa, Buendía López, Andión, Herrero, Lassaletta, Ramirez, Ruano, Hernández-Marqués, Varo, de Rojas, Cortés Hernández, Verdú-Amorós, Martín Prado, Artigas, Redondo, Ruiz Pato, Herreros López, Sevilla, Madero, Moreno, Bautista Sirvent and Rubio-San-Simón.)

Introduction: The assessment of quality of life (QoL) should be one of the main objectives in paediatric clinical trials. Even though researchers, regulators and advocates support the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), this has not been fully implemented. The aim of this study is to assess the measurement of QoL and the usage of PROs, palatability assessments and medication diaries in early-phase clinical trials for childhood and adolescent cancer., Methods: Early-phase clinical trials for children and adolescents with cancer opened between 2005 and 2022 at the Royal Marsden Hospital (London, UK) and Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (Barcelona, Spain) were interrogated for trial characteristics and the use of QoL questionnaires, PROs, palatability assessments and medication diaries., Results: Overall, 72 clinical trials were analysed: 12 (16.7%) evaluated QoL and eight (11.1%) evaluated PROs. Palatability was tested in 21/40 (52.5%) trials of oral drugs and 23/72 (31.9%) incorporated medication diaries. No studies mentioned patient involvement in the trial protocol. Use of PROs increased from one of 36 (2.8%) to seven of 36 (19.4%) between the first period (2005-2016) and the second period (2017-2022) (p = .02). Implementation of medication diaries increased from seven of 36 (19.4%) to 16/36 (44.4%) in each period, respectively (p = .02)., Conclusion: Only a minor proportion of the international/multicentric early-phase trials evaluated included QoL/PROs and medication diaries or palatability questionnaires to help assess these, although this trend seems to be increasing over recent years. Greater implementation of QoL/PROs has the potential to improve the patient's wellbeing and facilitate symptom control, to enhance patient/parent involvement in future trial designs and to provide information for drug prioritisation., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3-K) signalling pathway is a crucial path in cancer for cell survival and thus represents an intriguing target for new paediatric anti-cancer drugs. However, the unique clinical toxicities of targeting this pathway (resulting in hyperglycaemia) difficulties combining with chemotherapy, rarity of mutations in childhood tumours and concomitant mutations have resulted in major barriers to clinical translation of these inhibitors in treating both adults and children. Mutations in PIK3CA predict response to PI3-K inhibitors in adult cancers. The same mutations occur in children as in adults, but they are significantly less frequent in paediatrics. In children, high-grade gliomas, especially diffuse midline gliomas (DMG), have the highest incidence of PIK3CA mutations. New mutation-specific PI3-K inhibitors reduce toxicity from on-target PI3-Kα wild-type activity. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus is approved for subependymal giant cell astrocytomas. In paediatric cancers, mTOR inhibitors have been predominantly evaluated by academia, without an overall strategy, in empiric, mutation-agnostic clinical trials with very low response rates to monotherapy. Therefore, future trials of single agent or combination strategies of mTOR inhibitors in childhood cancer should be supported by very strong biological rationale and preclinical data. Further preclinical evaluation of glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta inhibitors is required. Similarly, even where there is an AKT mutation (∼0.1 %), the role of AKT inhibitors in paediatric cancers remains unclear. Patient advocates strongly urged analysing and conserving data from every child participating in a clinical trial. A priority is to evaluate mutation-specific, central nervous system-penetrant PI3-K inhibitors in children with DMG in a rational biological combination. The choice of combination, should be based on the genomic landscape e.g. PTEN loss and resistance mechanisms supported by preclinical data. However, in view of the very rare populations involved, innovative regulatory approaches are needed to generate data for an indication., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest RB is an employee of Genentech, A Member of the Roche Group, South San Francisco, CA USA. JC is an employee of Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, NJ, USA. SGD has received consulting fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, Bayer, InhibRx, and Jazz and travel funding from Loxo, Roche, and Salarius. JF is an employee of Kazia Therapeutics. IG an employee of Celcuity. HK is an employee of Loxo Oncology at Lilly. DL is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme. AM is an employee of Actuate. MEM has receiving consulting fees for advisory board participation from Ymabs Therapeutics, Recordati and travel funding from Bayer. KN has received consulting fees for advisory board participation from Y-mAbs, EUSA Pharma and Bayer, fees for teaching from Bayer and serving on a data monitoring committee from Lilly. ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In a landscape of an increasing number of products and histology and age agnostic trials for rare patient cancer, prioritization of products is required. Paediatric Strategy Forums, organized by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency with participation of the US Food and Drug Administration, are multi-stakeholder meetings that share information to best inform pediatric drug development strategies and subsequent clinical trial decisions. Academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates are equal members, with patient advocates highlighting unmet needs of children and adolescents with cancer. The 11 Paediatric Strategy Forums since 2017 have made specific and general conclusions to accelerate drug development. Conclusions on product prioritization meetings, as well as global master protocols, have been outputs of these meetings. Forums have provided information for regulatory discussions and decisions by industry to facilitate development of high-priority products; for example, 62% of high-priority assets (agreed at a Forum) in contrast to 5% of those assets not considered high priority have been the subject of a Paediatric Investigational Plan or Written Request. Where there are multiple products of the same class, Forums have recommended a focused and sequential approach. Class prioritization resulted in an increase in waivers for non-prioritized B-cell products (44% to 75%) and a decrease in monotherapy trials, proposed in Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) submissions of checkpoint inhibitors from 53% to 19%. Strategy Forums could play a role in defining unmet medical needs. Multi-stakeholder forums, such as the Paediatric Strategy Forum, serve as a model to improve collaboration in the oncology drug development paradigm., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Better therapies for childhood cancer remain an unmet need to improve the dismal prognosis of certain malignancies and to reduce the burden of toxicity. Rescuing discontinued or shelved drugs for children, adolescents, and young adults is a strategy to identify new uses for approved or investigational medicines outside the scope of their original medical indication. Our proposed multistakeholder consensus focuses on the development of innovative, patent-protected targeted agents, sourced from previously shelved or discontinued programs that have the potential to provide significant benefit to underserved patient populations, with unmet medical needs. There are several challenges to continuing/rescuing drugs for pediatric oncology development, which include the lack of information for decision making, corporate strategy considerations underlying the decision to invest in pediatric development, and the contracting and technology transfer complexities required to enable divestment and subsequent development. The multistakeholder approach for drug development has the advantage of conveying a consensus among academia, patient advocates, and importantly industry itself. We propose three areas of action to facilitate rescuing potentially beneficial drugs for children and adolescents with cancer: (i) initiatives to provide information to companies considering developing these drugs and a standards framework; (ii) incentives both in Europe and in the United States to encourage companies to develop pediatric-only drugs, with the reform of the EU Pharmaceutical Legislation posing an important opportunity; and (iii) communication of the issues to all stakeholders. Ultimately, this will benefit children and adolescents with cancer., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

DNA damage response inhibitors have a potentially important therapeutic role in paediatric cancers; however, their optimal use, including patient selection and combination strategy, remains unknown. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the number of drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and the limited number of paediatric patients available to be enrolled in early-phase trials, so prioritisation and a strategy are essential. While PARP inhibitors targeting homologous recombination-deficient tumours have been used primarily in the treatment of adult cancers with BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations occur infrequently in childhood tumours, and therefore, a specific response hypothesis is required. Combinations with targeted radiotherapy, ATR inhibitors, or antibody drug conjugates with DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor-related warheads warrant evaluation. Additional monotherapy trials of PARP inhibitors with the same mechanism of action are not recommended. PARP1-specific inhibitors and PARP inhibitors with very good central nervous system penetration also deserve evaluation. ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, CHK1, WEE1, DNA polymerase theta and PKMYT1 inhibitors are early in paediatric development. There should be an overall coordinated strategy for their development. Therefore, an academia/industry consensus of the relevant biomarkers will be established and a focused meeting on ATR inhibitors (as proof of principle) held. CHK1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in desmoplastic small round cell tumours and have a potential role in the treatment of other paediatric malignancies, such as neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. Access to CHK1 inhibitors for paediatric clinical trials is a high priority. The three key elements in evaluating these inhibitors in children are (1) innovative trial design (design driven by a clear hypothesis with the intent to further investigate responders and non-responders with detailed retrospective molecular analyses to generate a revised or new hypothesis); (2) biomarker selection and (3) rational combination therapy, which is limited by overlapping toxicity. To maximally benefit children with cancer, investigators should work collaboratively to learn the lessons from the past and apply them to future studies. Plans should be based on the relevant biology, with a focus on simultaneous and parallel research in preclinical and clinical settings, and an overall integrated and collaborative strategy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest IG is an employee of Merck Serono Ltd, Feltham, UK, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. TJU is an employee of Repare Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, USA. TJH is an employee of GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA. BRD is an employee of AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK. JC is an employee of Pfizer, Tadworth, UK. RB is an employee of Genentech, a Member of the Roche Group, South San Francisco, CA, USA. ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a key concept in pediatric oncology. This systematic review aims to update the conceptual HRQOL model by Anthony et al. (Qual Life Res 23(3):771-789, 2014), covering physical, emotional, social and general HRQOL aspects, and to present a comprehensive overview of age- and disease-specific HRQOL issues in children with cancer., Methods: Medline, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and the COSMIN database were searched (up to 31.12.2020) for publications using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and qualitative studies in children with cancer (8-14-year) or their parents. Items and quotations were extracted and mapped onto the conceptual model for HRQOL in children with cancer mentioned above., Results: Of 2038 identified studies, 221 were included for data extraction. We identified 96 PROMS with 2641 items and extracted 798 quotations from 45 qualitative studies. Most items and quotations (94.8%) could be mapped onto the conceptual model. However, some adaptations were made and the model was complemented by (sub)domains for 'treatment burden', 'treatment involvement', and 'financial issues'. Physical and psychological aspects were more frequently covered than social issues., Discussion: This review provides a comprehensive overview of HRQOL issues for children with cancer. Our findings mostly support the HRQOL model by Anthony et al. (Qual Life Res 23(3):771-789, 2014), but some adaptations are suggested. This review may be considered a starting point for a refinement of our understanding of HRQOL in children with cancer. Further qualitative research will help to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the HRQOL model and the relevance of the issues it encompasses., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: More effective incentives are needed to motivate paediatric oncology drug development, uncoupling it from dependency on adult drug development. Although the current European and North-American legislations aim to promote drug development for paediatrics and rare diseases, children and adolescents with cancer have not benefited as expected from these initiatives and cancer remains the first cause of death by disease in children older than one. Drug development for childhood cancer remains dependent on adult cancer indications and their potential market. The balance between the investment needed to execute a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) in Europe and an initial Paediatric Study Plan (iPSP) in the US, coupled with the potential financial reward has not been sufficiently attractive to incite the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs for rare indications such as childhood cancer., Methods: We propose changes in the timing and nature of the rewards within the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation (PMR) and Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (both currently under review), which would drive earlier initiation of paediatric oncology studies and provide incentives for drug development specifically for childhood indications., Results: We suggest modifying the PMR to ensure mechanism-of-action driven mandatory PIP and reorganization of incentives to a stepwise and incremental approach. Interim and final deliverables should be defined within a PIP or iPSP, each attracting a reward on completion. A crucial change would be the introduction of the interim deliverable requiring production of paediatric data that inform the go/no-go decisions on whether to take a drug forward to paediatric efficacy trials., Conclusion: Additionally, to address the critical gap in the current framework where there is a complete lack of incentives to promote paediatric-specific cancer drug development, we propose the introduction of early rewards in the Orphan Regulation, with a variant on the US-Creating Hope Act and its priority review vouchers., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The European Paediatric Medicine Regulation was launched in 2007, aiming to provide better medicines for children. However, its benefit for paediatric patients with cancer has been questioned and the European Paediatric and Orphan Regulations have been under review since November, 2020. To ascertain the effect of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, all paediatric anti-cancer medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency from 1995 to 2022 were identified and reviewed using the agency's public assessment reports, and all Paediatric Investigation Plans granted since 2007 were analysed. 16 new molecular entities (NMEs; ie, a drug that contains an active moiety that had never been approved before) have been approved since the regulation was launched in 2007. The number of paediatric marketing authorisations increased from 2007 but represented the same 17% of all anti-cancer drug marketing authorisations before and after 2007. After 2007, nine (56%) of 16 NMEs were first authorised both in adults and children. For seven NMEs, a first paediatric indication was approved with a median lag time of 6·4 years (range 1·2-21·5 years) after the first authorisation in adults. Half of NMEs were authorised for the treatment of malignancies responsible for only 5·4% of all European childhood cancer deaths, including three medicines for melanoma and thyroid cancer-adult cancers occurring very rarely in children. The increased number of paediatric anti-cancer NMEs after 2007 is a result of the major increase in new medicines authorised for adult cancers since 2005 rather than a direct effect of the Paediatric Regulation. Paediatric development of these NMEs was driven by their adult market and did not address major unmet medical needs of children and adolescents with cancer. An improved, fit-for-purpose regulatory environment that incentivises paediatric drug development based on mechanism of action, better incentives, and a systematic multi-stakeholder engagement, with greater investment from industry, public funding, and non-governmental organisations, will increase the number of new medicines approved in the future to cure more children and adolescents with cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GV has received consulting fees paid to his institution from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hutchinson-Medi Pharma, Pyramid, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, and travel support from Roche and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. ACCELERATE is funded by the Andrew McDonough B(+) Foundation and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer are poorly recruited to molecularly targeted trials and have not witnessed the advances in cancer treatment and survival seen in other age groups. We report here a pan-European proof-of-concept study to identify actionable alterations in some of the worst prognosis AYA cancers: bone and soft tissue sarcomas., Design: Patients aged 12-29 years with newly diagnosed or recurrent, intermediate or high-grade bone and soft tissue sarcomas were recruited from six European countries. Pathological diagnoses were centrally reviewed. Formalin-fixed tissues were analysed by whole exome sequencing, methylation profiling and RNA sequencing and were discussed in a multidisciplinary, international molecular tumour board., Results: Of 71 patients recruited, 48 (median 20 years, range 12-28) met eligibility criteria. Central pathological review confirmed, modified and re-classified the diagnosis in 41, 3, and 4 cases, respectively. Median turnaround time to discussion at molecular tumour board was 8.4 weeks. whole exome sequencing (n = 48), methylation profiling (n = 44, 85%) and RNA sequencing (n = 24, 50%) led to therapeutic recommendations for 81% patients, including 4 with germ line alterations. The most common were for agents targeted towards tyrosine kinases (n = 20 recommendations), DNA repair (n = 18) and the PI3K/mTOR/AKT pathway (n = 15). Recommendations were generally based on weak evidence such as activity in a different tumour type (n = 68, 61%), reflecting the dearth of relevant molecular clinical trial data in the same tumour type., Conclusions: We demonstrate here that comprehensive molecular profiling of AYA patients' samples is feasible and deliverable in a European programme., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MP has received honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from the following for-profit companies: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), CMC Contrast, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Roche, BMJ Journals, MedMedia, Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Lilly, Medahead, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dome, Tocagen, Adastra, Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals. EW has received honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from the following for-profit companies: Bistol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, PharmaMar. SF: Consulting or advisory board membership: Bayer, Illumina, Roche; honoraria: Amgen, Eli Lilly, PharmaMar, Roche; research funding: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche; travel or accommodation expenses: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Illumina, PharmaMar, Roche. MGM: Advisory board membership: Amgen, Ipsen. JO: research grant from AstraZeneca; honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Bayer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre Medicament and Bristol-Myers Squibb. SMP reports an IMI-2-funded grant entitled ITCC-P4, which is equally funded by the EU as well as 10 EFPIA companies (www.itccp4.eu); in addition, S.M. Pfister has a patent EP 16710700 A 20160311 (methylation-based tumour classification) issued. All other authors had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

As the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling pathway is activated in many paediatric cancers, it is an important therapeutic target. Currently, a range of targeted MAPK pathway inhibitors are being developed in adults. However, MAPK signals through many cascades and feedback loops and perturbing the MAPK pathway may have substantial influence on other pathways as well as normal development. In view of these issues, the ninth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on MAPK inhibitors. Development of MAPK pathway inhibitors to date has been predominantly driven by adult indications such as malignant melanoma. However, these inhibitors may also target unmet needs in paediatric low-grade gliomas, high-grade gliomas, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia and several other paediatric conditions. Although MAPK inhibitors have demonstrated activity in paediatric cancer, the response rates and duration of responses needs improvement and better documentation. The rapid development and evaluation of combination approaches, based on a deep understanding of biology, is required to optimise responses and to avoid paradoxical tumour growth and other unintended consequences including severe toxicity. Better inhibitors with higher central nervous systempenetration for primary brain tumours and cancers with a propensity for central nervous system metastases need to be studied to determine if they are more effective than agents currently being used, and the optimum duration of therapy with MAPK inhibition needs to be determined. Systematic and coordinated clinical investigations to inform future treatment strategies with MAPK inhibitors, rather than use outside of clinical trials, are needed to fully assess the risks and benefits of these single agents and combination strategies in both front-line and in the refractory/relapse settings. Platform trials could address the investigation of multiple similar products and combinations. Accelerating the introduction of MAPK inhibitors into front-line paediatric studies is a priority, as is ensuring that these studies generate data appropriate for scientific and regulatory purposes. Early discussions with regulators are crucial, particularly if external controls are considered as randomised control trials in small patient populations can be challenging. Functional end-points specific to the populations in which they are studied, such as visual acuity, motor and neuro psychological function are important, as these outcomes are often more reflective of benefit for lower grade tumours (such as paediatric low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma) and should be included in initial study designs for paediatric low-grade glioma. Early prospective discussions and agreements with regulators are necessary. Long-term follow-up of patients receiving MAPK inhibitors is crucial in view of their prolonged administration and the important involvement of this pathway in normal development. Further rational development, with a detailed understanding of biology of this class of products, is crucial to ensure they provide optimal benefit while minimising toxicity to children and adolescents with cancer., (Copyright © 2022 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary Merck & Co., Inc., The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The eighth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (mTKIs) in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. The development of curative, innovative products in these tumours is a high priority and addresses unmet needs in children, adolescents and adults. Despite clinical and investigational use of mTKIs, efficacy in patients with bone tumours has not been definitively demonstrated. Randomised studies, currently being planned or in progress, in front-line and relapse settings will inform the further development of this class of product. It is crucial that these are rapidly initiated to generate robust data to support international collaborative efforts. The experience to date has generally indicated that the safety profile of mTKIs as monotherapy, and in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted therapy, is consistent with that of adults and that toxicity is manageable. Increasing understanding of relevant predictive biomarkers and tumour biology is absolutely critical to further develop this class of products. Biospecimen samples for correlative studies and biomarker development should be shared, and a joint academic-industry consortium created. This would result in an integrated collection of serial tumour tissues and a systematic retrospective and prospective analyses of these samples to ensure robust assessment of biologic effect of mTKIs. To support access for children to benefit from these novel therapies, clinical trials should be designed with sufficient scientific rationale to support regulatory and payer requirements. To achieve this, early dialogue between academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates is essential. Evaluating feasibility of combination strategies and then undertaking a randomised trial in the same protocol accelerates drug development. Where possible, clinical trials and development should include children, adolescents, and adults less than 40 years. To respond to emerging science, in approximately 12 months, a multi-stakeholder group will meet and review available data to determine future directions and priorities., Competing Interests: Conflcits of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/ personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: FB is an employee and stockholder of Ipsen Pharma. JC is an employee of Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. MC has served as an advisor for Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, and Servier. SGD has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Loxo Oncology and has received travel reimbursement from Roche and Salarius. EG is an employee of Oncoheroes Biosciences. AH is an employee of Blueprint Medicines. KJ has received consulting fees from Bayer and Ipsen and honoraria fromTakeda and Foundation Medicine. JK is an employee of Allarity Therapeutics. SK is an employee of HUTCHMED International Corporation. CO is an employee of Eisai GmbH. ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Children with cancer suffer from numerous symptoms and side-effects, making supportive interventions indispensable to improve their quality of life. The gold standard for evaluating the latter is patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. This systematic review investigates the current practice of clinical outcome assessment (COA) in clinical trials on supportive interventions., Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT were searched for trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer receiving supportive care registered 2007-2020. The use of different types of COAs was analysed, focusing on PRO assessment and the domains measured with PRO measures (PROMs). Associations with trial characteristics were investigated using univariate and multivariable analyses., Results: Of 4789 identified trials, 229 were included. Among them, 44.1 % relied on PROMs, the most commonly used COA. The proportion of trials using PROMs did not significantly differ over time. In the multivariable analysis, intervention type (higher PROM use in behavioural vs. medical interventional trials) and cancer type (higher PROM use in mixed and solid tumour samples vs. haematological samples) were significant predictors of PROM use. The majority of trials using PROMs (59.6 %) measured more than one health domain. 'Physical health' was the most frequently assessed domain (92.6 %)., Conclusion: Less than half of registered clinical trials investigating supportive interventions for children with cancer used PROMs. This result is striking since supportive care explicitly focuses on patients' quality of life, which is best assessed using PROMs. Our systematic review underlines the need to identify barriers for PROM implementation and to improve PRO research in paediatric oncology., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Legislation regulating Spanish and European academic curricula prescribes a certain level of knowledge and skills any student must master. Spanish universities freely decide the number of credits assigned to each subject and in which year the subject will be taught. We hypothesize that this flexibility may give way to excessively heterogeneous training across universities in nursing degrees. Such curricula heterogeneity hinders inter-university transfers and weakens educational excellence., Objectives: 1) To review the existing differences in nursing degrees in Spanish universities; 2) to compare our results against current legislation; 3) to propose changes in the legislation, if necessary., Design: Mixed-methods approach., Setting: Spain., Methods: We reviewed nursing degree curricula of all 60 Spanish universities. Inter-university differences were analyzed and checked against current legislation. A focus group proposed legislative changes accordingly., Results: Several differences between public and private universities were statistically significant. During the first cycle, public universities´ course loads include more theoretical teachings, more credits in core subjects during the first year, and more compulsory subjects in second year. Private universities are more likely to offer external internships during the first cycle whereas the public ones are more likely to offer them during the second cycle. Public universities offer more credits under the following curricular blocks than private ones: "Nutrition/Dietetics," "Psychiatry," "Public and Community Health," and "Geriatrics." In turn, private universities offer more credits in the areas of "Theory/Methodology," "Ethics/Legislation," "English," and "Theology." Academic curricula meet most of the criteria established by the Spanish and European legislation. The proposed legislative changes aim at standardizing curricula by associating specific credits and their timeline to the teaching blocks., Conclusions: Nursing degree curricula among Spanish universities are highly heterogeneous. Legislative changes to homogenize teaching blocks would facilitate credit validations and student mobility across universities, in addition to increasing nursing degrees´ standardization and excellence., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rapid evaluation and subsequent regulatory approval of new drugs are critical to improving survival and reducing long-term side-effects for children and adolescents with cancer. The international multi-stakeholder organisation ACCELERATE was created to advance the timely investigation of new anti-cancer drugs. ACCELERATE has enhanced communication and understanding between academia, industry, patient advocates and regulators. It has promoted a mechanism-of-action driven drug development approach and developed Paediatric Strategy Forums. These initiatives have facilitated prioritisation of medicinal products and a focused and sequential strategy for drug development where there are multiple potential agents. ACCELERATE has championed the early assessment of promising drugs in adolescents through their inclusion in adult early phase trials. ACCELERATE has strongly supported alignment between the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration and identification of unmet medical needs through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Early engagement between all stakeholders in the development of new drugs is critical. Innovative clinical trial designs are required, necessitating early discussion with sponsors and regulators. Amplifying the patient advocate voice through inclusion across the drug development continuum will lead to better, patient-centric trials. By these means, children and adolescents with cancer can maximally and rapidly benefit from innovative products to improve outcomes and reduce burdensome sequelae., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: PCA is an employee of Sanofi. EB is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals. HC is an employee of Hoffmann-La Roche and owns stock of Hoffmann-La-Roche. SGD has consulted for Bayer and received travel expenses from Loxo, Roche and Salarius. LG has been an unpaid advisor to Amgen, Janssen, Kura, Novartis, OnKure and Pfizer and owns stock in Amgen, Sanofi Paris and Mirati. MK is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals. KarstenNysom has consulted for Y-mAbs and has been an advisor to EUSA Pharma, Y-mAbs and Bayer and provided teaching to Y-mAbs and Bayer. ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. RR is an employee of Gritstone Oncology, Inc. JS is an employee of INOVIO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. DW is an employee of Janssen Research & Development. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The seventh multi-stakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells for children and adolescents with cancer. The development of CAR T-cells for patients with haematological malignancies, especially B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (BCP-ALL), has been spectacular. However, currently, there are scientific, clinical and logistical challenges for use of CAR T-cells in BCP-ALL and other paediatric malignancies, particularly in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), lymphomas and solid tumours. The aims of the Forum were to summarise the current landscape of CAR T-cell therapy development in paediatrics, too identify current challenges and future directions, with consideration of other immune effector modalities and ascertain the best strategies to accelerate their development and availability to children. Although the effect is of limited duration in about half of the patients, anti-CD19 CAR T-cells produce high response rates in relapsed/refractory BCP-ALL and this has highlighted previously unknown mechanisms of relapse. CAR T-cell treatment as first- or second-line therapy could also potentially benefit patients whose disease has high-risk features associated with relapse and failure of conventional therapies. Identifying patients with very early and early relapse in whom CAR T-cell therapy may replace haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and be definitive therapy versus those in whom it provides a more effective bridge to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a very high priority. Development of approaches to improve persistence, either by improving T cell fitness or using more humanised/fully humanised products and co-targeting of multiple antigens to prevent antigen escape, could potentially further optimise therapy. Many differences exist between paediatric B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) and BCP-ALL. In view of the very small patient numbers with relapsed lymphoma, careful prioritisation is needed to evaluate CAR T-cells in children with Burkitt lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma and other NHL subtypes. Combination trials of alternative targets to CD19 (CD20 or CD22) should also be explored as a priority to improve efficacy in this population. Development of CD30 CAR T-cell immunotherapy strategies in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma will likely be most efficiently accomplished by joint paediatric and adult trials. CAR T-cell approaches are early in development for AML and T-ALL, given the unique challenges of successful immunotherapy actualisation in these diseases. At this time, CD33 and CD123 appear to be the most universal targets in AML and CD7 in T-ALL. The results of ongoing or planned first-in-human studies are required to facilitate further understanding. There are promising early results in solid tumours, particularly with GD2 targeting cell therapies in neuroblastoma and central nervous system gliomas that represent significant unmet clinical needs. Further understanding of biology is critical to success. The comparative benefits of autologous versus allogeneic CAR T-cells, T-cells engineered with T cell receptors T-cells engineered with T cell receptor fusion constructs, CAR Natural Killer (NK)-cell products, bispecific T-cell engager antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates require evaluation in paediatric malignancies. Early and proactive academia and multi-company engagement are mandatory to advance cellular immunotherapies in paediatric oncology. Regulatory advice should be sought very early in the design and preparation of clinical trials of innovative medicines, for which regulatory approval may ultimately be sought. Aligning strategic, scientific, regulatory, health technology and funding requirements from the inception of a clinical trial is especially important as these are very expensive therapies. The model for drug development for cell therapy in paediatric oncology could also involve a 'later stage handoff' to industry after early development in academic hands. Finally, and very importantly, strategies must evolve to ensure appropriate ease of access for children who need and could potentially benefit from these therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ABassan is an employee of Syncopation Life Sciences. EB is an employee of Novartis. CB is an employee of Cellectis. SBC is an employee of CRISPR Therapeutics and has stock ownership in CRISPR. DSH has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Incyte, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe Dohme, Lilly. LH is an employee of Miltenyi Biomedicine. IDH is an employee of Tessa Therapeutics. BKM is an employee of Kite, a Gilead company. YM is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals International. SM has participated in advisory boards for Novartis and Wugen and received clinical trial support from Novartis. LP is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. ADJP has participated in advisory boards for Novartis, Takeda, Merck, Lilly and Celgene and consulted for Lilly and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited MP is an employee of Autolus Limited. AQ-C is an employee of TCR2 Therapeutics. RR is an employee of Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. CR has participated in advisory boards for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Novartis and Pfizer. MAS is an employee and stock ownership of Gracellbiotechnologies Inc. SKT receives research funding from Incyte Corporation and Beam Therapeutics and as participated in advisory boards of Aleta Biotherapeutics and Kura Oncology. MCZ has been a constant for Incyte, Sanofi, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Jazz, Abbvie, Roche and Takeda; has received institutional funding from Jazz, Pfizer, Takeda, Abbvie and funding for travel from Jazz. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: What are the fertility outcomes of male and female childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) long-term survivors?, Summary Answer: We observed similar fertility outcomes in both male and female childhood ALL survivors compared with the general population, with the exception of a higher proportion of miscarriages among partners of male survivors., What Is Known Already: Survival after childhood ALL is currently >90% and fertility impairments are among the main concerns of the long-term survivors. Few studies have focused on the fertility issues within this selected population and the existing data are difficult to interpret due to the different treatment regimens received by the patients, the small sample sizes and the unavailability of control data in many studies., Study Design, Size, Duration: Childhood ALL patients enrolled in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) studies between 1971 and 1998 in France and Belgium, <18 years old at diagnosis and alive and ≥18 years at follow-up were eligible. Among 1418 eligible survivors, 507 (35.8%) participated (277 females, 230 males). Controls from the general population matched one to one by age, province, level of urbanization and sex could be identified for 503 survivors., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Survivors and controls were invited to fill out a questionnaire including information about their menstrual cycles (for females), intention to have children, having children, use of medical help to become pregnant and occurrence of negative pregnancy outcomes (birth defect, miscarriage, medical abortion or stillbirth). The results were analysed separately for females and males. The association between age at diagnosis and fertility outcomes, adjusted by age at follow-up, study and country were investigated using logistic regression., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The median time since diagnosis was 20.1 years and the median age at follow-up was 25 years. There were 144 survivors (97 females, 47 males) who wanted to have children. Among these, craniospinal radiotheraphy (CRT) and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) were administered to 18% and 4%, respectively. Of these who tried to have children, 75% of females and 69% of males succeeded, compared with 72% and 61% of the controls, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.73 for females and P = 0.50 for males). Overall, fertility outcomes were comparable between survivors and controls, except that a higher proportion of miscarriages occurred in partners of male survivors (28.1% versus 5.9%, P = 0.021). Among female survivors, an older age at diagnosis (10-17 years) was associated with a greater risk of pregnancy problems (adjusted OR 5.61, P = 0.046)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The interpretation of the incidence of miscarriage among the partners of male survivors is limited by the lack of data regarding the males' partners and by a possibly higher tendency to recall and disclose fertility issues among male survivors compared with male controls., Wider Implications of the Findings: Fertility outcomes were similar in childhood ALL survivors and controls, and the low proportion of patients treated with CRT or HSCT might explain this. Further studies should confirm the higher proportion of miscarriages in partners of male survivors., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This publication was supported by donations from the Fonds Cancer (FOCA) from Belgium and the KU Leuven from Belgium. G.R. has been awarded a fellowship by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund (ECRF). C.P. has been awarded a fellowship by Fonds Cancer (FOCA) from Belgium and the Kinderkankerfonds from Belgium (a non-profit childhood cancer foundation under Belgian law). No competing interests were declared., Trial Registration Number: NCT01298388 (clinicaltrials.gov)., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The first (2017) and sixth (2021) multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forums focused on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies. ALK is an important oncogene and target in several paediatric tumours (anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL], inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour [IMT], neuroblastoma and hemispheric gliomas in infants and young children) with unmet therapeutic needs. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been demonstrated to be active both in ALK fusion-kinase positive ALCL and IMT. ALK alterations differ, with fusions occurring in ALCL, IMT and gliomas, and activating mutations and amplification in neuroblastoma. While there are many ALK inhibitors in development, the number of children diagnosed with ALK driven malignancies is very small. The objectives of this ALK Forum were to (i) Describe current knowledge of ALK biology in childhood cancers; (ii) Provide an overview of the development of ALK inhibitors for children; (iii) Identify the unmet needs taking into account planned or current ongoing trials; (iv) Conclude how second/third-generation inhibitors could be evaluated and prioritised; (v) Identify lessons learnt from the experience with ALK inhibitors to accelerate the paediatric development of other anti-cancer targeted agents in the new regulatory environments. There has been progress over the last four years, with more trials of ALK inhibitors opened in paediatrics and more regulatory submissions. In January 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved crizotinib for the treatment of paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALCL and there are paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for brigatinib and for crizotinib in ALCL and IMT. In ALCL, the current goal is to investigate the inclusion of ALK inhibitors in front-line therapy with the aim of decreasing toxicity with higher/similar efficacy compared to present first-line therapies. For IMT, the focus is to develop a joint prospective trial with one product in children, adolescents and adults, taking advantage of the common biology across the age spectrum. As approximately 50% of IMTs are ALK-positive, molecular analysis is required to identify patients to be treated with an ALK inhibitor. For neuroblastoma, crizotinib has not shown robust anti-tumour activity. A focused and sequential development of ALK inhibitors with very good central nervous system (CNS) penetration in CNS tumours with ALK fusions should be undertaken. The Forum reinforced the strong need for global academic collaboration, very early involvement of regulators with studies seeking possible registration and early academia-multicompany engagement. Innovations in study design and conduct and the use of 'real-world data' supporting development in these rare sub-groups of patients for whom randomised clinical trials are not feasible are important initiatives. A focused and sequenced development strategy, where one product is evaluated first with other products being assessed sequentially, is applicable for ALK inhibitors and other medicinal products in children., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement EB is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals and was an employee of Pfizer. HC is an employee of Hoffmann-La Roche. SGD has consulted for Bayer and received travel expenses from Loxo Oncology, Roche, and Salarius. FD is the European principal investigator of the Roche Alectinib study and participated in advisory boards for Bayer, BMS, Roche, Celgene, LOXO Oncology, Servier and Tesaro and received travel expenses from Bayer, BMS, Roche and consultancy from Servier and received funding for research projects from Onxeo, Synth-Innove. LVM has consulted for Bayer and participated in advisory boards for BMS and Tesaro, and been a Data Monitoring Committee Member for Eisai and Merck. YM is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals International. YPM has been a consultant for Pfizer. KN participated in advisory boards, consulted and taught for Bayer, Y-mAbs, and EUSA. GS is an employee of Xcovery. ADJP has participated in advisory boards for Novartis, Takeda, Merck, Lilly and Celgene and consulted for Lilly and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited. KW is an employee of Pfizer. WW has consulted for Takeda and participated in an advisory board for Takeda Pharmaceuticals International. ZFZ is an employee of Turning Point Therapeutics. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Only few data are available on treatment-associated behavior of distinct rare CNS embryonal tumor entities previously treated as "CNS-primitive neuroectodermal tumors" (CNS-PNET). Respective data on specific entities, including CNS neuroblastoma, FOXR2 activated (CNS NB-FOXR2), and embryonal tumors with multilayered rosettes (ETMR) are needed for development of differentiated treatment strategies., Methods: Within this retrospective, international study, tumor samples of clinically well-annotated patients with the original diagnosis of CNS-PNET were analyzed using DNA methylation arrays (n = 307). Additional cases (n = 66) with DNA methylation pattern of CNS NB-FOXR2 were included irrespective of initial histological diagnosis. Pooled clinical data (n = 292) were descriptively analyzed., Results: DNA methylation profiling of "CNS-PNET" classified 58 (19%) cases as ETMR, 57 (19%) as high-grade glioma (HGG), 36 (12%) as CNS NB-FOXR2, and 89(29%) cases were classified into 18 other entities. Sixty-seven (22%) cases did not show DNA methylation patterns similar to established CNS tumor reference classes. Best treatment results were achieved for CNS NB-FOXR2 patients (5-year PFS: 63% ± 7%, OS: 85% ± 5%, n = 63), with 35/42 progression-free survivors after upfront craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and chemotherapy. The worst outcome was seen for ETMR and HGG patients with 5-year PFS of 18% ± 6% and 22% ± 7%, and 5-year OS of 24% ± 6% and 25% ± 7%, respectively., Conclusion: The historically reported poor outcome of CNS-PNET patients becomes highly variable when tumors are molecularly classified based on DNA methylation profiling. Patients with CNS NB-FOXR2 responded well to current treatments and a standard-risk CSI-based regimen may be prospectively evaluated. The poor outcome of ETMR across applied treatment strategies substantiates the necessity for evaluation of novel treatments., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to assess the patients' subjective health status. While both the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommend the use of PROs as end-points in paediatric clinical trials to support claims for medical product labelling, it is not known how often PROs are actually used. The aim of this study was to assess the usage of PRO instruments in childhood cancer clinical trials investigating anti-cancer medication., Methods: In June 2020 ClinicalTrials and EudraCT were systematically searched for all trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer registered between 2007 and 2020. The use of PRO measures and trials characteristics were analysed. To investigate which trial characteristics are associated with the use of PROs, a binary logistic regression was calculated., Results: Of 4789 identified trials, 711 were included. The most frequent reason for exclusion was age limitation (age >21 years). Of all included trials, only 8.2% used PROs as end-points; .6% as the primary end-point. The most commonly used questionnaire was the PedsQL™ (32.8%), followed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales (12.1%). No association was observed between the use of PROs and trial region, number of centres, trial phase, time period or intervention type (all p > .05). The use of PROs did not substantially increase over time. Only 20.3% of the closed studies had published their results., Conclusion: Despite recommendations of regulatory agencies, PRO assessment is extremely rare in paediatric oncology clinical trials. More efforts should be undertaken to facilitate implementation of PRO in paediatric trials to guarantee patient-centred research and treatments., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement None declared., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)